robblok

17 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

First of all let me make a very simple point.  Excess body fat is a SYMPTOM of something of much greater concerns.  Too many people think of obesity as a disease, and seek to remedy it through "dieting" by caloric reduction.

 

Obesity is only a symptom of a greater problem, and that problem is simply an imbalance of metabolic hormones caused by poor nutrition over time. 

 

Some refer to this as "metabolic syndrome".  The chief cause is habitual overconsumption of carbohydrates, not too many calories.  It is really as simple as that!

 

If the cause was too many calories, then calorie-reduction diets would work just fine.  They have been the mainstay of attacking obesity for over 100 years.  If they worked, we would not be in the midst of an obesity epidemic right now with one-third of the population of developed countries being obese.

 

Not everybody suffers from metabolic syndrome.  When a person is  young and quite active (up until your early 20's), they can eat practically anything.  Their bodies can adapt to over consumption of carbs, BUT if they are inactive, or simply as a result of natural aging, their metabolic processes can lose that ability to maintain homeostasis, and that's where problems start.

 

When that happens, you need to address the cause, and the cause is not too many calories consumed, it is the ineffectiveness of hormones such as insulin to function properly.  

 

Merely cutting calories will not fix the problem.  The only answer is to restore to proper functioning of hormones, primarily insulin.  To do that requires lowering insulin levels and restoring sensitivity of insulin receptors to insulin.  That is NOT going to happen if you merely cut calories, but consumption of carbohydrates remains high.

 

It's really that simple.

So you just ignore all my points. You keep not responding to the Twinkie diet, maybe because it blows holes in your theories.

Great, you forget one thing caloric reductions work, problem is sticking to them. Its never been proven that they don't work the problem is sticking with them. (like with most things)

Now if you have the metabolic syndrome you say it will get back in balance by cutting out processed carbs and eating less then you burn. Its that simple.  Latest research shows aging is not so much of a problem but the inactivity and loss of muscle that comes with it (like you described) is the problem.

5 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

I fully understand what a calorie is, and yes if you eat more than you burn, you will gain weight.  What you neglect to acknowledge is that accumulating excess body fat involves a lot more than eating excess calories, and that's where we always come into conflict.

 

In all of our discussions you seem to put ZERO importance on metabolic factors that have a major bearing on whether a person accumulates excess fat, and seem to insist it is simply a matter of calories in vs calories out.

 

What I am saying is the metabolic factors are crucial.  If somebody habitually over-consumes carbohydrates, their insulin levels remain high 24/7.  You seem to refuse to accept a basic concept that insulin is essentially an on/off switch for whether the body stores or burns body fat.  That is really the main function of insulin; to tell the body when to store fat or when to access it.  It really is that simple!

 

If a person's insulin levels are continually high through overconsumption of carbohydrates, their body will NEVER be able to access stored body fat.

 

My point is simply that up until the last decade or so, the prevailing notion of obesity is that it is the result of too many calories, and that is just not the complete picture.  If it were that simple, then all of the popular diets that rely on caloric restriction would work...but obviously they do not work, otherwise we would not be in an obesity epidemic right now with over one-third of the population of developed countries being obese!

 

Until people embrace the underlying metabolic factors involved in obesity, people will contnue to be obese.

My point is also simpel, if you don't eat more then you burn your body will burn fat because at those amounts your body can't have a constant insulin height. You seem to forget that all the time. You seem to overstate insulin as i have proven with the Twinkie diet. (so much carbs and still weight loss). If the amount is low enough you will lose fat even if its carbs.

You are too focused on details while ignoring logic. If insulin was so important and so destructive the Twinkie diet would not have worked. Tell me how do you explain that ?

All I am saying is that insulin is not a problem if you burn more then you consume. However it can compound things if you overeat. But don't underestimate the bodies ability to get insulin low again. 

On 7/18/2022 at 7:16 AM, RichardColeman said:

If I was a share holder, I vote they were out with the pick and shovel to finish on time - not taking money from my dividend payout for compensation !

Your not rich enough to be a share holder (to have any meaningful influence), so its just your personal vision. Not something that is done in any country. I guess that says enough. 

7 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

Think there should be a new law, every construction project that falls behind means every employee of the company must be out with a pick and shovel until its finish - office staff,  management and all 

Do they have that in the west too or is that just something you just came up with. Now paying compensation is an other thing that is of course normal just like in other countries.

14 minutes ago, Excel said:

How do you know that ? Just because some things of value were found does not prove that others of more value had already been removed/stolen. 

True but chances are higher that it is no crime. You never know something 100% sure but the chances are higher that it was natural then that it was not. 

6 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

Yes but who goes for a walk in an abandoned field? probably in a state of distress

Maybe confusion dementia onset by some illness. Who knows but no robbery as everything of value was there.

1 hour ago, BangkokReady said:

But isn't referred to as a drug generally.

 

When we say alcohol, we mean drinks containing alcohol. We're not claiming that people are knocking back 100% pure ethanol.

 

When we say drug, we mean something like coke, ecstacy, heroin, etc.

 

The fact that alcohol is technically a drug, or that caffeine is, is not really relevant to the discussion.

It is as it is a mind altering substance that is worse then some drugs and is classified as a drug. So people consuming alcohol are as bad as other drug users. Simple as that. 

I dont have a problem with drug users, only when they commit crimes while using drugs (an accident with victims while drunk and or high should have an extra few years added IMHO)

People who cant use their drugs (and alcohol for those who don't consider it a drug) responsible without bothering others should be punished. Not the guy sipping his beer or the guy smoking a joint. But the guy killing or hurting others while under the influence should be punished extra severe.

8 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

Regardless of the causation, e.g. not in his right mind at the time.

 

One has to ask:

 

1) Did he take an illegal substance, yes

2) Did he murder innocent people because of the effect of the illegal substance he took, possibly a yes, regardless, he murdered innocent people

3) Did he know it was an illegal substance, yes

4) Did anyone force him to take the substance, no

 

At the end of the day, we all have a responsibility in society to not cause harm to others, now I overindulged in drinking alcohol and was totally smashed, and was driving home and had an accident, my responsibility to society just went out the window, as the deaths I could cause on the road on the way home would be contributed to my irresponsibility, i.e. drinking excessively, not catching a cab, etc

 

When we overstep the mark, this is what happens, I have no sympathy for those who do not act responsibly and harm or kill others for their lack of respect to others.

 

One has to ask oneself what if that was my 4year old, playing in the front yard shot dead because this piece of garbage took an illegal substance and lost it, should I say, it wasn't him, he wasn't in his right state of mind, it was the drugs that caused him to act that way, again, refer to 3 & 4 above.

 

To put it mildly, there is no excuse for this kind of behaviour and he should be put down asap IMO.

 

For those who defend him because they believe it was the effect of the drug/s, then ask yourself this, would that innocent 4 year old be waking up this morning if he didn't take that illegal substance, obviously that's a no brainer, that said, there is a reason why these drugs are an illegal substance.

 

RIP 

I am all for liberal drug laws, however when someone commits a crime like this under the influence extra punishment should be handed down. Same goes for the drug alcohol, like driving and killing someone. Should also be far harsher be punished. 

But if you take drugs fine your own business. If you then harm others, extra punishent should be added. 

43 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Is there actually any clear evidence that links DNA to intelligence?  The thing is, often people with low IQs are poor, whether in a developing country or a racial minority in a developed country, so nutrition, education and parental involvement is probably a lot higher of a factor.

 

I'm sure you can appreciate the damage that mislabelling the terminally poor as being genetically predisposed to low intelligence.

There is a link if your parents have a high intelligence then quite often you have too. Though you could say that your points prove it because smart parents usually have money and so on. But what i read there is a genetic part to it. But not so broad as to say that Dutch people are smarter then fill in the ones below the top 10. 

But its seems to be linked to your parents for sure. 

14 minutes ago, peterfranks said:

It should be everyone's right of freedom, something like the first amendment that Americans are so proud of.

 

If your health condition doesn't allow you a certain quality of life, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to leave? You' aren't a burden on anyone leaving by euthanasia, but since you don't get that option, suicide is the only way out.

 

I had a friend pass away recently. For the last month he was kinda vegetable, waiting in his bed for the grim reaper to come pick him up.

 

I really felt for him during that month, that he was forced to suffer, because government don't allow people the right to a quality life.

 

 

 

It should be after consultation with some psychiatrist or something to be sure the person is not pushed into it by his or her family. Because that is the only problem with it that people might feel they have to do it to not be a burden on their family.

But I doubt it will ever happen that we will be totally free like that to decide too many religious people who want to oppose their views on others. Even in the Netherlands its those bible thumpers that are against it. 

I mean they believe life is a gift from god. Sure if they think like that then let THEM not do it but give freedom to others. Many religions are against this kind of freedom.

But it makes sense on a planet full of people and overpopulation.

If she was high on weed this topic would be full of posts, but this is just alcohol the drug the conservative thinkers love. ????

8 minutes ago, proton said:

Nobody suggested the cops should hand out punishment, but if you look at all of the video it's clear Floyd was resisting arrest, acting irrationally and not cooperating. He did not deserve to die in the way he did, but he does not deserve to be held up as a saint or innocent victim either. If he had not been breaking the law the cops would never have been called. 

Fake arguments, he was no threat at all cuffed on the ground. Before might have been resisting but the danger was long gone. No need to go overboard. The guy was no angel and he might have deserved to die however that is not the cops duty nor does it influence their mistake. The guy was a criminal and a bad one I don't lose sleep over his death. But once you start accepting this lines blur and more violence by cops goes on. The US already has a reputation for that.

Other cops and the judge and jury saw it the same so your a minority. 

Your argument of cops being placed in tough spots is far more convincing. The others are just B.S. Cops have a hard time that is for sure. However when they truly cross the line like here the should be held accountable. When things are more grey they should have more slack then the average person.

You do know that cops are only to use force when in danger, using deadly force on someone on the floor and in cuffs is not accepted anywhere in the world.

I can understand cops being more violent if dealing with people who are known to be dangerous and criminal but that stops once the danger is gone.

8 hours ago, proton said:

Not forgiven but not a prison sentence, Cops have a hard time dealing with drugged up powerful criminals like Floyd on a regular basis who refuse to comply and do what they are told. If he had he might be still alive, if he had not overdosed again of course.

Your got a strange opinion. What i know of the law is that judges (in other countries) and juries (in US) deal out punishment. The cops themselves should not deal out punishment, you act like the cop should have punished the guy.

Yes the police should be given some slack however in this case even other cops were shocked. We all know the guy was a bad guy but that does not mean that cops should be judge jury and executioner. Maybe you like the movie judge dredd a lot.

This cop crossed the line used violence when it was not needed and the suspect was not a danger to anyone. He begged bystanders begged and the cop just went on. He was in handcuffs on the ground no danger at all.

I am all for giving cops a way out because they are put in situations where they can make mistakes in the heat of the moment. This was not such a case.

In my country just recently a cop shot at a 16 year old farmer, during the farmer protests. The cop thought he was in danger the boy had no ill intention but the cop was put in this situation and the farmers were violent before. So i get it why the cop made an error. But this was a in the heat of the moment action. Then I am for no or really low punishments. But not like this a suspect already in cuffs on the ground.

As for you saying he would likely be dead and crimes have been prevented so the cop should get off. That is a load of B.S. again you don't know the future and cops should not do this.

9 hours ago, candide said:

Right! Why didn't "All lives matter" protest? Why didn't you protest?

 

BTW, it surely has to do with the fact that the case has been kept hidden for long time. and the Dallas police blocked the release of the bodycam video for 3 years (it was released in 2019 only). In the Floyd case, bystanders made videos with their phones, which were quickly diffused in social media.

Noo...Noo.... you should not use logic and reason.. it makes people look bad. Either they really don't understand and that means lack of critical thinking or they knew and just want to justify something.

On 7/2/2022 at 11:37 AM, Jingthing said:

I think this is about the insane backlash against critical race theory. They don't want the white kids to feel guilty or some such silliness.

Not sure why people should feel guilty about slavery, its so long ago besides many of the original slaves were captured by their fellow countrymen not whites. 

They should tell it how it that is was a horrible practice that was done in the past. Should sugarcoat it but at the same time nobody living now should feel guilty about it.

On 7/6/2022 at 4:56 AM, Stargeezr said:

With all the shootings in the USA,  one would think that the gun laws would be changed a lot more than they finally have been, but no that 2nd amendment and the NRA power seem to keep the insanity going. Having a population of 350 million is not a help either. When less than a million are killed such as what happened from COVID, it does not affect the population amount that much. Throw in the  different attitudes of different states and it all becomes one big mess to try sort out.

 

I agree that there are a lot less shootings in Europe and usually a lot less people die in them as well. Look at the age of the 2 latest shooters in their 20s.   Either still living with Mom and Dad, or barely on their own. No real experience on their own, and they have to go out and kill other people. It is a real sad world we live in.

Its a sad world that is for sure, too many crazy people.

1 minute ago, wn2c said:

I have never seen any fat guy eat only the few carbs that you eat. End of discussion ????

 

I agree, 100% with you. Processed carbs are bad. But not ALL carbs are bad. That is my whole point. That is why in almost every post i make it clear stay away from the processed food / carbs. 

You just don't seem to differentiate between the two is it so hard to admit that there are carbs that one can eat without problems (again if too much its still a problem but i really cant stuff myself with sweet potato ????)

Just now, wn2c said:

sometimes you can post something smart it seems ????

 

 

I guess my IQ is well above the average thaivisa reader at 125-135 so no wonder i post smart things at times. 

But cannabis is a dangerous thing for me if it take it too early, then i will order icecream and bad carbs. All my self control is out of the window then.

But  not everyone responds the same way to cannabis, same as with diets there is no one rule for all. 

1 minute ago, wn2c said:

i understand very well what you are saying, so many stupid articles online telling the same, but they are disconnected to people real life, just as stupid doctors who understand nothing.

most people do not eat carbs in moderation and add a lot of %hit sauce with carbs, not so difficult to understand finally ?!

 

 

No that is absolutely not difficult to understand, hence what i always say don't eat processed foods those are the bad carbs that people overeat on and ad sauce too. I never seen people put sauce on a steamed sweet potato, or add sauce to oatmeal.

So what I have always been saying cut the processed foods then it really does not matter if you eat some good carbs. Saying that all carbs are bad and you should stay away from carbs is far too much of a generalization.  It really tires me that there are too many acolytes of the low carb sect. 

I believe in eating healthy foods carbs included (not processed carbs like cakes french fries and  the likes) Is it so hard to differentiate between the two. 

The strange thing is nobody, ever gave me an explanation why the twinkie diet, highly processed sugary stuff still worked for weight loss. 

Maybe they cant because of their information bias. 

8 minutes ago, wn2c said:

you should finally understand how wrong you are and clearly say that someone who doesn't train daily and eat too much carbs is wrong, you like it or not, it's not only about calories, it's also about glucose, it's so funny that you keep thinking "theory" when we are talking to you about real life. I guess that you have been one of the first vaccinated, maybe you need more to help you think ????

 

 

Its so funny that you dont seem to understand what I am saying. Processed food is bad, normal carbs are not bad in moderation. Maybe you should read some real science instead of believing the pseudo science of a few.

I never stated that too much carbs is bad. Im at 200 grams (high days) of carbs a day. that is around 33% the rest comes from proteins and some fat. My carbs are oats, sweet potato, berry rice slow digesting no problem with insulin.

Maybe you could explain me how it is that a professor lost loads of weight on a twinkie diet. I mean those are bad carbs and he still lost the weight. So riddle me that how is that possible ?

1 hour ago, PoorSucker said:

Do 7-11 deliver beer? 

I think that falls onder the ban on online ordering of alcohol.